AAA wrong on ethanol

Recently, AAA warned car owners to beware of E15 (15 percent ethanol blend) and even asked the government to stop its sale. The auto club indicated that 15 percent ethanol blended with gasoline could hurt car engines. Further, it claimed that the government-required labeling of E15 blends was confusing and unintelligible.

I was surprised by AAA's attack. I am confused, given several respected expert studies that hail the ability of E15 to reduce America's dependency on imported oil, improve environmental quality and lower the cost of gasoline.

I do not know AAA's research capacity. Their criticism of E15, however, seems based on studies initiated by the Coordinated Research Council and the American Petroleum Institute. Both are funded by the oil and automobile industries and both have received criticism from impartial institutions, such as the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency.

It's not the funding that is most disturbing to me. Grants and gifts are received by universities and think tanks to support studies of interest to donors. What is important when special interest funding occurs, particularly where public interest(s) are affected, is that study methodologies are transparent and drafts are subject to independent review by experts. Most universities and many think tanks also insist that funders do not control methodology and outcomes. Based on the AAA release concerning E15, I am not sure that the AAA adhered to these ground rules.

Briefly, AAA indicated with no “ifs ands or buts” that the sale and use of E15 should be stopped until there is more extensive testing. The auto club also wants better pump labels and more consumer education about hazards of a 15 percent ethanol blend. AAA's comments do not reflect the extensive testing by EPA and DOE. A spokesperson for EPA wrote a blog in response to AAA, indicating that last summer's government testing for EPA approval included 86 cars, including up to 120,000 miles per vehicle on ethanol blends.

“We believe the choice of test engines, test cycle, limited fuel selection and incomplete data, severely limits the utility of CRC data.” It also appears that the EPA is now working on labeling with the AAA.

In April, the DOE indicated that the CRC's study reflected weak methodology and that its conclusions were not statistically significant. Apparently, the council looked at six different vehicles during the study. In total, only 28 engines were tested (16 on E20, six on E15, and six on E0). Some of the engines reflected durability problems prior to the study, irrespective of the type of fuel used in them. Only one vehicle, apparently, was a late model car.

AAA indicated that they also surveyed their membership concerning problems with E15. But their press release does not indicate what kind of sample was chosen, how many members were surveyed, how many responded or whether the response was significant. It would be great to see the methodology and numbers.

Readers should know that a much higher blend of ethanol to gasoline has been used in Brazil for a long time without problems and their flex-fuel cars are able to safely use E85.

Bob Dineen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association (clearly a trade group), who supports the use of ethanol, was understandably angry when responding to the AAA statement. He described the CRC study as junk science. Dineen is not independent and is an advocate for his industry. But the vehemence of his full comments deserves at least a reading.

I would not revoke the EPA's permission to sell E15 blends in gasoline. If there are engine issues related to corrosion, they are minor and fixable. I think Congress should be comfortable with the EPA's and DOE's independent studies and recommendations. While, unlike AAA, I don't have absolute wisdom, given all the studies I have read and the competing data I have reviewed, ethanol and other competitive alternative fuels, like methanol and natural gas, are the best bet the nation has to reduce dependency on foreign oil as well as to reduce carcinogens, GHG, other pollutants and the costs of gasoline.

I know EPA and DOE testified before Congress several times concerning the E15 initiative, before they issued their order allowing its sale. They were asked tough questions. I would suggest that Congress provide the AAA with the same “opportunity.” The group should explain its recommendations and the analyses as well as methodology behind it.

I should tell you that I remain a card-carrying, dues-paying AAA member. They provide good service.

Though I am not sure they are the best researchers or that they have separated funding sources from their positions and acted transparently in stating their positions on E15. I can't resist a Shakespeare quote, “Times glory is to calm contending kings, to unmask falsehood and bring truth to light.”

User Agreement

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial
slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about
tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to
allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to
republish your name and comment in additional Register publications
without any notification or payment.